Peninsula enterprise. [volume] (Accomac, Va.) 1881-1965, 1887-12-10

Iht'''S StiCuN iHef w S'iN'@u-sO Va -
by the general use OF intoxicating
drinks; Tor can, we ignore the fact,
established hy STATISTICS accessible
TO every one that the disorder, pau
perism and crime prevalent in the
country are, in large measure, dI
rcctly traceable to this evil. IT,
therefore, State deems the ahso
lutte prohibition of the manufacture
and the sale within her limits of
Intoxicating liquors for other than
medical. scientific and mannfactur.
ing purposes to he necessary to the
peace and security of society, the
courts cannot, without usnrping
| legislative functions, override the
will Of the people asthus expressed
by their chosen representatives.
tits easy to he seen that the en-
tire. scheme of prohibition, as en-.
bodied in the constitution and laws
Of Kansas. might fail if the right
ot each citizen to manufacture III
toxicating liquors for his own nse
as beverage were recognized
Sle'l a right does not inhere IN
citizenship.
"lt is commended that rs the
primary and principal use Of beer
is as q beverage; rs the hreweries
were erected when 1t was lawful to
engage in tie manufacture of beer
for every purpose; as such estab
liShment will Income Of no value as
property. or. at least, will be very
materially diminished in value, If
not employed in the man lfa@tnre
of beer for every pnrprse. the pro
hihition upon their being sn en-
ployed ~ in effect taking proper
tv for public use without conpt'Il-
sation, and consequential deprlva-
ton of property without duo pro-
cess of law.
"Ths Interpretation Of the four
teenth amendment is inadmissible.
All property in this country is held
under the implied obligation that
the owners use Of it "shall not be
injurious to The equal enjoyment of
others having an equa! right to the
enjoyment of others having an
equal right to the enjoyment of
their pronertv, nor injurious to the
rights of the community The pow
er which the States uEquestionably
have Of prohibiting such use by in
dividuals of their property as will
be prejudicial TO the health, the
morals or the safety of the public,
is nor-and, consistently with the
existence of organized society,
could not be-burdened with the
condition that the State must com
pen<ate such individual owners for
pccuniary losses they sustain by
reason of their not being permitted,
by a noxious use of their property.
to inh.ct injury upon the commu-
nifty OF which they form part
The exercise of the police power by
the destruction Of property which
is itselra public nuisance, or the
i prohibition of its use in II particu-
lar way whereby it's value becomes
lpprecia.ed. is very different from
taking property for public Use or
from depriving person Of his
property without due process of
law. In tho one case nuisance
only is ataie,l: in the O her, unof
Tending property is taken away
from IN Innocent owner. 1t is true
that when the defendants in these
cases purchased or erected their
breweries the laws Of the State did
not forbid the manufacture of in
toxicating Liquors. But the Stats
did not thereby give any assurance
or come under IN obligation that
it's legislation upon that subject
would remain unchanged.
.sFor the REASONS stated we are OF
opinion that Mngler, the plaintiff
in error, has not been denied by the
judgments Of the Supreme Court OF
Kansas any right. privilege or i'm
munity secured to him by the eDn-
stitntion of the Unised States, ami
its Judgment in each case is accord
ingIy affirmed.